Selected Decisions and Documents - International Seabed Authority

6. Although the matter was discussed extensively during the fourteenth session, it was not possible for
the Council to reach final consensus on the question of the formula for determining the size of the
exploration area. While there was broad agreement concerning the use of a clustered block system and the
number of such blocks that may be allocated to each contractor, concerns remained about the appropriate
spatial distribution of blocks within a particular geographical area. Following detailed discussion of the
different proposed options for a geographical limitation on the spatial distribution of the permitted clusters of
blocks, there was widespread support for the formula that is currently reflected in regulation 12(3) in
ISBA/15/C/WP.1, whereby exploration blocks would be organized in non‐contiguous clusters of at least five
blocks each and confined within an overall geographic area not exceeding 300,000 square kilometres in size
and where the longest side does not exceed 1,000 kilometres in length. Some delegations, however,
expressed the need to study the proposal further and to seek further technical advice.
A. Fee for applications (regulation 21)
7. The arguments relating to the amount of the fee for applications for exploration were set out at
length in paragraphs 17 to 28 of document ISBA/14/C/4 and do not need to be repeated here. Some
delegations, however, had requested further information on the components of the work associated with
processing and administering a plan of work for exploration (from application to contract) that is performed
by the Authority. This information is provided in annex I to the present document.
B. Overlapping claims
8. During the fourteenth session, a preliminary discussion took place on the issue of overlapping claims.
It was recalled that, in the case of polymetallic nodules, it had not been necessary to make any provision in
the regulations for overlapping claims since all overlapping claims to potential mine sites had in fact been
dealt with under resolution II of the Third United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea or by
arrangements reached during the work of the Preparatory Commission. In the case of polymetallic sulphides
and cobalt‐rich crusts, however, the basic principle in the regulations was that application would be taken on
a “first‐come, first‐served” basis. In these circumstances, and recognizing that initial applications may be
submitted for overlapping areas, the Legal and Technical Commission had considered it necessary to include a
procedure for resolving such claims on a fair and equitable basis.
9. Accordingly, draft regulation 24(2) in document ISBA/13/C/WP.1 had been proposed by the Legal and
Technical Commission on the basis of a similar procedure found in resolution II of the Third United Nations
Conference on the Law of the Sea. Regulation 24 provided that, in the event of overlapping claims, the
Secretary‐General would notify the applicants before the matter is considered by the Council. Applicants
would then have the opportunity to amend their claims so as to resolve any conflicts with respect to their
applications. However, in the event of a conflict, the Council would then determine the area or areas to be
allocated to each applicant on an equitable and non‐discriminatory basis.
10. During the discussions at the fourteenth session, it became clear that most members of the Council
did not agree with the proposal as formulated by the Legal and Technical Commission. In particular it was
generally considered inappropriate for the Council to be forced to make a choice between competing
applications. A preference was expressed for a time period to be allowed during which competing applicants
could determine between themselves the resolution of any overlaps, with the ultimate possibility of recourse
to binding dispute settlement. Following an initial debate, an alternative proposal for a draft regulation 22 bis
was prepared by the Secretariat (ISBA/14/C/CRP.2) and circulated on 2 June 2008. There was insufficient time
to discuss this proposal in detail and several delegations asked for more time to consider the legal issues and
precedents involved.
11. In the light of the preliminary discussions to date, the Secretariat has prepared suggested language
for consideration by the Council at the fifteenth session. This is set out in annex II to the present document.
40